John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 10-May-2002 Peter Wemm wrote:
> > David O'Brien is in the process of committing gcc-3.1. If you are not
> > prepared to do your own fixing, now would be a good time to avoid -current.
> > It is a big task and will take a while to finish, so please be patient!
> >
> >
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 07:48:47PM -0700, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> ...
>
>/d/home/des/tinderbox/src/kerberos5/lib/libkrb5/../../../crypto/heimdal/lib/krb5/acl.c:77:
> warning: implicit declaration of function `__va_size'
fixed.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscrib
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
On 10-May-2002 Peter Wemm wrote:
> David O'Brien is in the process of committing gcc-3.1. If you are not
> prepared to do your own fixing, now would be a good time to avoid -current.
> It is a big task and will take a while to finish, so please be patient!
>
> Cheers,
> -Peter
YAY!!
*
David O'Brien is in the process of committing gcc-3.1. If you are not
prepared to do your own fixing, now would be a good time to avoid -current.
It is a big task and will take a while to finish, so please be patient!
Cheers,
-Peter
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
At 6:29 PM -0500 5/9/02, Jordan DeLong wrote:
> > Symlink or redirector, but please not this. :-)
>
>Shouldn't ports *not* touch anything outside of ${PREFIX}?
>I, for one, can't stand when ports do that
>(except /etc/shells -- that's different).
I agree. That's why a redirector makes more sens
Jordan DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Seems that neither symlink nor redirector is neccesary; portable
> perl shebangs use #!/usr/bin/env perl to search $PATH for it, and
> if the local sysadmin wants they can make a symlink.
Most Perl scripts use '#!/usr/bin/perl'; also, using a redirector
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 05:31:49PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 May 2002 08:24:57 MST, Joseph Scott wrote:
>
> > This may sound like an extremely silly little idea, but is there
> > any reason why we can't just replace /usr/bin/perl with a shell script
> > that prints out somet
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> = > The most frustrating thing is, the number of such symbols varies
> = > greatly with the order, in which I list the libraries on the command
> = > line. Is not the linker supposed to make several runs over the given
> = > libraries if needed?
> =
> = No. It doesn't mak
Mark Murray wrote:
> > [bogus From: address, because people cannot be bothered to respect Reply-To
:]
> >
> > On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 10:57:00AM +0100, Mark Murray wrote:
> > > It would be acceptable to rewrite in C (C++?)
> >
> > NO! for rewriting in C++. If you do, you'll soon see the con
On Wednesday 08 May 2002 09:52 pm, Terry Lambert wrote:
= Mikhail Teterin wrote:
[...]
= > The most frustrating thing is, the number of such symbols varies
= > greatly with the order, in which I list the libraries on the command
= > line. Is not the linker supposed to make several runs over the gi
"Pawel Worach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any idea?
rpcgen needs to be a bootstrap tool, but isn't. This has been broken
for a long time, just not visibly. Try the attached patch.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Index: Makefile.inc1
===
yppasswd_svc.c: In function 'yppasswdprog_1':
yppasswd_svc.c:100: warning passing arg 1 of '_msgout' discards qualifiers
from pointer target types
***Error code 1
1 error
***Error code 2
1 error
***Error code 2
1 error
***Error code 2
1 error
***Error code 2
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, then. What is so wrong with /usr/bin/perl being "/usr/bin/env perl",
> or DES's wrapper?
People just need something to be righteously wroth about. Moving perl
out of the base is no longer open to debate, so they've found another
bikeshed to argue
Hi
The response to the perl-script rewriting project has been
very hearteningly _fantastic_!
Here is the list as it stands. The gaps are fairly obvious (and
probably mostly not critical in the short term):
/usr/bin/afmtodit
/usr/bin/catman John Rochester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - re
/usr/bi
> On 09-May-2002 (15:38:45/GMT) Mark Murray wrote:
>
> >> I tryed this one. I'm not a committer, just a volunteer :-)
>
> > You're on! Please put appropriate (c) on this (Preferably
> > 2-clause BSD license) and I'll commit it for you :-)
>
> Ahemm, I'm not sure to have done correct job. Pl
On 09-May-2002 (15:38:45/GMT) Mark Murray wrote:
>> I tryed this one. I'm not a committer, just a volunteer :-)
> You're on! Please put appropriate (c) on this (Preferably
> 2-clause BSD license) and I'll commit it for you :-)
Ahemm, I'm not sure to have done correct job. Please review last
--
>>> Rebuilding the temporary build tree
--
>>> stage 1: bootstrap tools
--
>>> stage 2: cleaning up the object tree
I had to recover about this amount, before.
The way I ended up doing it was to hack all the strings shorter.
Boots were ugly, but they worked. 8-(.
-- Terry
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> When building /sys/boot on i386 with Gcc 3.1, one gets "-96 bytes
> available". Anyone want to install the gc
[bogus From: address, because people cannot be bothered to respect Reply-To:]
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 09:32:10AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> > Why?? If someone wants to use perl in building a port, let them.
> > Add a BUILD_DEPENDS.
>
> Seems like an awful amount of installation if all you ar
On 09-May-2002 David O'Brien wrote:
> When building /sys/boot on i386 with Gcc 3.1, one gets "-96 bytes
> available". Anyone want to install the gcc31 port, build /sys/boot with
> "make CC=gcc31" and try to hack out 96 bytes?
Argh! Can't we go one update of gcc w/o them adding some weird optim
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 07:16:31PM +0200, Miguel Mendez wrote:
> > Ports should avoid messing with stuff outside of ${PREFIX} if they can
> > help it. Existing systems will already have a /usr/bin/perl on them
> > unless the user goes and removes it. People writing or executing scripts for
> > n
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Uh, csh. Preferrably with tcsh extensions, so it won't run anywhere
> else. In a pinch, I guess you could use "bash".
As far i can see, (almost?) everything is already moved from perl to
something else. Asked it, went away for a few hours and all the
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 12:55:42PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
Hi,
> Ports should avoid messing with stuff outside of ${PREFIX} if they can
> help it. Existing systems will already have a /usr/bin/perl on them
> unless the user goes and removes it. People writing or executing scripts for
> new
When building /sys/boot on i386 with Gcc 3.1, one gets "-96 bytes
available". Anyone want to install the gcc31 port, build /sys/boot with
"make CC=gcc31" and try to hack out 96 bytes?
You will need this diff also.
Index: boot2/Makefile
==
Richard Arends wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Mark Murray wrote:
> > > Can somebody, or maybe you, make a list off the perl script in the base
> > > OS, that need to be rewritten??
> >
> > Of course! :). Done, sent to current@
>
> Perfect...
>
> What is preffered: C, Shell ???
Uh, csh. Preferrab
26 matches
Mail list logo
